“My friends are too level headed to be activists”

I think I’m beginning to understand. The pejorative part of the term “homosexual activist” is “activist,” which I guess means that homosexuals are acceptable if they don’t try to change anything.

I’ve never considered myself an activist, mjpb, but in this context, I’ll wear the tag “homosexual activist” with pride. I even grant you permission to refer to me as the uppity n1gger – oh sorry, not n1gger, uppity fag.

“Homosexual activists sure have a phobia about that type of thing don’t they?”

There you go generalising about us again, mjpb. All the law-abiding human beings I know object to being arbitrarily associated with criminals. The claim “christians and psychopaths have irrational beliefs” would do the same sort of thing as you have done with homosexuals and paedophiles. People who are careful with their language, and who respect those they are referring to don’t make these kinds of claims.

In response to my earlier question (“was it malice or carelessness?”) you’ve pretty well ruled out carelessness, and given the above, I’m kinda running out of other conclusions I can draw.

You’re right, Robert. The opponents of equal rights for same-sex-attracted people are completely oblivious to the contradictions in the various positions they take.

The most recent figure for gay Australians that I have seen in a well-constructed study: “According to Roy Morgan Single Source, 2.4% of Australians aged 18 or over, or 370,000 people, consider themselves to be gay.” http://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/pdf/g&l_roymorganarticle-2006update.pdf The numbers aren’t that low at all, but some will blindly argue from any figure they happen to come across without bothering to check.

Even so, in a country which claims to value a fair go for all, the numbers are also irrelevant. Either we have equality for all, or we have no equality at all. It doesn’t come in half measures.

paedophile's linked to which group?

- http://www.toowoombapressreleases.com/?id=123450
- http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/bib/church.html
- http://www.deception.com.au/6_hypocrites_conclusion.htm
- http://www.armedia.net.au/archive/2003c/edit06.html
- http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/12/ch3.pdf

An interesting comment in the aic document was
"male victims of paedophiles outnumber female victims by a ratio of two to one. It is important to note, however, that while boys are more likely to be the victims of paedophiles, girls are more likely to be victims in reported child sexual abuse cases overall (Angus & Woodward 1995, p. 12);"

Some context for this comes a bit earlier "It is very important to understand that not all child sex offenders are paedophiles —
paedophiles are a sub-set of child sex offenders One of the most useful typologies of child sex offenders for law enforcement purposes (but not, perhaps, for other disciplines) is the division between preferential and situational child sex offenders. Preferential offenders are paedophiles and situational offenders are those who prefer adult sexual partners but who, at times of stress, convenience or curiosity, may engage in sexual activity with children. It can, however, be difficult to determine unequivocably whether a child sex offender is a paedophile unless their entire offending history and their true sexual preference is known."

R0bert

Well, here I am back again... When I first started this thread, I thought it was a simple one. Boy, was I wrong. Such a mix of emotions,
it has been (dare I say it) a 'revelation.'

I'll try to avoid controversial topics in future (whew). I even got called an 'atheist.' (Could have been worse - I suppose).

Anyway, I thought that my last words on the topic should 'lighten things up.' So here goes:

"Faggots, Poofters, Dykes and Queers,
These names have been around for years.
Just like Dagos, Micks and wogs,
The names do stick like frogs on logs.

Legal rights are all they seek,
Your condemnation's not unique.
"Don't give them rights!" is what you say.
But this is a problem that won't go away.

You quote the Bible, but you can't fudge...
Only God can be the judge.
"Do unto others..." was His Story,
And through it lies the path to glory.

Next time you pray, make sure you know,
It's the pure of heart, that will get to go.
So, when your turn comes, He'll exclude you, my dear,
Because God finds your outlook a bit queer!"

Wizofaus:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/90AE062D-13C5-4EC5-879E-A98FA76A1454/0/discussionpaper04006.pdf

A secular argument against same-sex marriage which covers some of the objections raised in this discussion:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/030714a.html

The negative impact same-sex marriage has on society:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm577.cfm

CJ: It doesn’t matter if children of Christians grow up to be gay. You heard it before: In March this year I watched my 4-yr old go under the wheel of a 4WD. Given the miracle that is his life, I’d love him gay, Buddhist, terrorist, ingrate. As long as he knows the power of Christ’s saving grace, I will always have hope.

Foxy: One of five Catholic children, Catholic primary and Catholic Girl’s HS, the usual sacraments (baptism, communion, confirmation) administered in childhood, married in a Catholic Church, 1st child baptized Catholic, close family member’s include a priest and missionary (father’s cousin), nun (aunt), Christian brother (uncle), Archbishop (mother’s cousin)... my Catholic credentials are all in order. Yet we are not singing from the same hymn book.

The key point of difference, is my reliance on the bible. If it doesn’t square with God’s word, then it has no place in what I believe. It is very easy to test what I am saying, just look up the bible references for yourself. When I stand before God, I will not be thinking of what I bring to the table. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”. (Romans 3:23-24)

For gender-conflicted young adults, for all who struggle with their sexuality: change is possible. God can work in our lives. Be realistic, but be optimistic:

“we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit”. (2 Cor: 3:18)

Oh dear, more deceptive sites from the religious right. The first of your links, katieO, makes a claim about the length of all same-sex relationships extrapolated from a sample of sexually active homosexual men under 30 who live in the Amsterdam area. No doubt the author knew this was dodgy, and now you do too.

The other links are just as dodgy, though Margaret Somerville needs to be addressed in detail. She’s a compelling speaker, but her opposition to same-sex marriage is based on a single invalid premise:

“If we focus on adult individuals' commitment to each other and public recognition of that commitment (as the courts have done), we can conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex unions and having a separate but equal institution for same-sex unions would be discrimination. If, however, we focus on the inherently procreative nature of an opposite-sex union and the absence of that feature in a same-sex union, we can regard the two types of union as different but equal.”

Opposite-sex unions may have been “inherently procreative” at the time when humans swung down from the trees, but they sure aren’t now. Humans are reproducing later, and living long fruitful lives well after the kids have flown the nest. How many seventy-year old couples are still together for the sake of the kids? None.

The ABS estimates that almost a quarter of Australian women bear no children http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/1e8c8e4887c33955ca2570ec000a9fe5!OpenDocument Where these women marry, the relationship is not “inherently procreative” either.

In fact, in today’s Australia, procreation has very little to do with marriage. In 2005, 32.2% of Australian births were ex-nuptial http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/4fb2487dc751e0f4ca25728e0014d184!OpenDocument , up from 10.2% in 1975.

Somerville’s arguments imply a return to the times when men controlled women’s fertility, and children were acceptable within only one relationship model. Unfortunately the world has moved on, and no amount of wishing or praying will turn back the clock to those times.

It’s quite interesting that many people claim that “homosexual activists” are seeking change, when in fact the changes have already taken place. All we’re asking is that the law recognise today’s reality.

TRTL
>>of legal age.... who can and can't have sex.<<

KEY WORD "legal"..... The concept of 'legal' is fluid..subject to change by activists, and politically astute lobby groups.

A better word is 'moral'......

JPW seems to describe his position by describing it as 'same sex attracted' then seeks to justify it, on the grounds of "a change of reality in the community"....but how did that reality change ?

ANSWER: Political, Social.. ACTIVISIM and lobbying! Combined with a rejection of moral principles which served as an anchor for our community.

JPW.. may I ask.. IF....you happened to be attracted to 'little' boys... and you were persuaded in your own mind (like the members of Nambla are) that 'sexual experiences between adult males and children are not neccessarily negative'....

Would you try to convince us that your 'inclination' was both moral, and acceptable, and that we simply have to catch up with your enlightened stance on such things ?

If, due to societies rejection of such behavior they experience alienation, depression, marginalization...would you seek to advance their cause?

If NOT...then you just discovered why many of us reject the idea that homosexual behavior should have the same legitimization that heterosexual behavior does. It is 'one step removed' from the moral equilibrium we believe is acceptable to a healthy society.

Would you expect such people..(Adult Child attracted) (many of whom absolutely believe they were 'born' this way, to express...OR.. to avoid the expression of such behavior ?

Don't bother going down the 'adult informed-consentual' track, because the definitions of 'adult' can change tomorrow. Muslims believe a girl is an 'adult' at the onset of puberty. In Aisha's case that was 9.

My view is that just as we expect Adult-Child sexual attraction to be avoided, repented of, supressed... we also have the absolute right to expect adult-adult same sex attraction to be limited to ATTRACTION, but not behavior, and that conformance to the reproductive pattern of male/female is the ONLY acceptable form of human sexual relationship.

Love someone of the same sex ? sure.. go4it.. just dont try to have SEX with them.